Dr. Patrick McCarthy's
Review of Court Decisions on
Workplace Discrimination
Key U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on
Workplace Discrimination and Affirmative Action:
Additional Key Discrimination and
Affirmative Action Precedents
Griggs v. Duke Power
(1971)
-
Blacks and whites treated the same
-
high school education required
-
standardized ability test score necessary
-
Blacks were less likely to meet either
requirement
-
Employees who did not pass perform
the job satisfactorily
-
Griggs won: U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that good intentions not a sufficient defense if discrimination occurs
Albemarle Paper Co. v.
Moody (1975)
-
As with Duke Power case, use of tests
led to discrimination against blacks
-
Albemarle presented validity evidence
for procedures
-
Albemarle lost: Court stated
that not only must test be valid, must also seek test with least adverse
impact (among those comparably valid)
-
poor technical quality of validation
weakened Albemarle's case
-
were unable to effectively argue its method more
valid than other options
-
extended Griggs v. Duke Power
(1971)
-
click
here to read the official decision
Washington v. Davis
(1976)
-
Black applicants to Washington, DC
police force scored lower on a verbal communications test
-
Police force showed criterion-related
validity between test scores and ratings in training
-
Washington, DC police force won
Connecticut v. Teal
(1982)
-
Multiple stage screening process used
-
Adverse impact shown in preliminary
screening (i.e., who chosen as finalist)
-
No adverse impact in choosing among
finalists
-
defense argued that no discrimination
in the actual final decision of whom to hire
-
Court ruled that illegal
McDonald v. Santa Fe
Trail Transportation Co. (1976)
-
White and black employees caught stealing
from company
-
White thieves fired but black thieves
retained to keep affirmative action quotas
-
Court ruled in favor of whites
Steelworkers v. Weber
(1979)
-
Union and company had negotiated agreement
granting black preferential treatment in apprenticeship program
-
Prior to agreement, seniority was basis
for selection into program
-
Weber (who is white and did not get
selected for apprenticeship program) sued because he had more seniority
than blacks who were selected
-
Weber lost
-
703j cited in the decision: interpretation
was that it's okay to grant preferential treatment if want to
-
Essentially, said union represented
Weber and negotiated away his claim that was 703a discrimination
-
click
here to read official decision
Bakke v. University of
California-Davis (1978)
-
Bakke had higher MCAT scores than minority
applicants to the medical school
-
UC-Davis had set aside certain number
of openings for minorities only to help meet affirmative action goals
-
Bakke sued because he was rejected
while blacks with lower scores were admitted
-
Bakke won
Bakke & Weber cases illustrate
fine line for whether Court emphasizes 703a to oppose any preferential
treatment, or an interpretion of 703j allowing that sometimes okay to do
so
Johnson v. Transportation
Agency, Santa Clara County, CA (1987)
-
Man scored higher than woman on job
related-test
-
Woman hired
-
Man sued because he wasn't hired
-
Court ruled in favor of the woman because
man didn't outscore her by much
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
(1989)
-
Hopkins was woman with strong performance
record (as accountant)
-
Bosses told her that her professionalism
subpar because she didn't act or look feminine enough (e.g., didn't
wear makeup)
-
Said her image relects on PW and is
therefore job relevant, and that clients (& potential clients) view
less feminine women more negatively
-
As a result, she was denied a promotion
-
Hopkins sued claiming gender discrimination
Atonio v. Ward Cove Packing
Co. (1989)
-
Statistics showed adverse impact against
Indians and Filipinos
-
Defense was no evil intent and no differential
treatment
-
Court ruled that not enough evidence
to establish discrimination
-
cited lack of evil intent and no differential
treatment as basis for concluding the statistics were misleading
-
negated Griggs v. Duke Power
(1971)
-
eliminated power of EEOC Uniform Guidelines
on adverse impact (that had said need to show validation of procedures
which result in discriminatory outcomes)
-
click
here to read the official decision
-
Congress responded to Atonio decision
by passing Civil Rights Act of 1991, which:
-
stated that selection procedures must
be job-related and show business necessity, and
-
reinforced the need to show validation
once adverse impact is shown
-
attempted to negate Atonio decision
& reinforce Griggs decision
-
U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 continued to resist its own precedent
from the Griggs decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in making adverse
impact prima facia evidence for discrimination
St. Mary's Honor Center v.
Hicks (1993)
-
Court ruled that even when adverse
impact shown, plaintiff must show discrimination was intentional
-
For more information on this case,
click
here
-
To read the official decision, click
here
-
In response, Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida introduced a bill to amend
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to make employer conduct unlawful
if adverse impact shown and the employer fails to produce evidence rebutting
discrimination or fails to provide evidence that nondiscriminatory reasons
produced the impact
-
bill introduced in 103rd and 104th Congresses (1995 & 1996), but got
stuck in committee (i.e., committee did not advance it to Congress for
full vote)
-
There was some conjecture that the Court could become more sympathetic
to the plaintiff once Ruth Bader-Ginsberg was added to the Court, but thus
far there have been no decisions indicating a change of direction for the
Court
Adarand Constructors, Inc.
v.
Pena (1995)
-
Result of this case was stricter judicial
standards for federal affirmative action programs which use race and ethnic
criteria as bases for making decisions
-
Programs must be "narrowly tailored"
to meet a "compelling government interest"
-
Requires that are remediating specific
previous discriminatory wrongs
-
not broadly compensating for generalized
discrimination of past
-
Requires also that affirmative action
remediations do not unnecessarily trampel the rights of non-minorities
-
click
here to read the official decision
Hopwood v. Texas (1996)
-
Hopwood challenged University of Texas's
use of race as a factor in decisions about admissions or scholarships
-
Lower court ruled that race cannot
be a factor
-
decision upheld by 5th Circuit Court
of Appeals (whose territory covers Texas, Louisiana, & Mississippi)
-
precedent with implications nationally
-
in fact, the organization who sued
on Hopwood's behalf (Center
for Individual Rights) filed class-action suit on behalf
of two white students against Univ. of Michigan in Oct. 1997, challenging
the affirmative action policies it has used to help double its minority
enrollment
-
claim discriminates against whites
in favor of unqualified blacks and Hispanics
-
click
here to read more about it, and keep an eye on the news to see if courts
reinforce the Hopwood ruling
California's Proposition
209
-
1996 California voters passed referendum
to end preferential treatment for any group (eliminating most affirmative
action programs in CA's public entities)
-
Upheld in California courts
-
U.S. Supreme Court (1997) declined
to hear appeal, thus ending legal challenges
-
Click
here for more information on Proposition 209, including the actual
text of it, as well as arguments for and against it
Piscataway Board of Education
v.
Taxman
-
October 1997 U.S. Supreme Court accepted
this case
-
Sharon Taxman (white) and Debra Williams
(black) hired by Piscataway High School on exact same day with comparable
qualifications
-
1989 school had to lay off one, and
seniority was usual policy
-
School decided racial diversity of
staff was important factor in students' educational experience
-
half of students not white
-
only had 14 black on staff of 176
-
no established history of discrimination
to remediate
-
Williams was retained and Taxman fired
-
1991: Bush administration's Justice
Dept. stated support for Taxman
-
1993: U.S. District Court ruled Taxman
wrongly dismissed
-
School Board appealed, and Justice
Dept. (now under Clinton) switched sides and supported School Board and
its version of affirmative action
-
Federal appeals court upheld ruling
and Board appealed to U.S. Supreme Court
-
Clinton administration shifted again,
urging Court to side with Taxman but not to rule out diversity as a goal
in all instances
-
Controversial,
unusual out-of-court settlement ended case before U.S. Supreme Court
was able to make ruling
-
civil rights groups feared the strong
possibility that Court would rule action was illegal
-
civil rights group (who wasn't directly
involved in case) funded settlement to avoid landmark precedent against
potentially high percentage of existing affirmative action programs
Kolstad v. American
Dental Association (1999)
-
Supreme Court decision makes suing
for on-the-job discrimination easier
-
ruled that can collect punitive damages
without showing employer's conduct was "egregious"
-
Separate vote in same case, ruled that
employers can protect themselves from punitive damages if a manager's discriminatory
conduct was contrary to employer's good-faith efforts to establish a bias-free
workplace
-
click
here to read the official decision
-
click
here to read a summary from ABC News
Toyota v. Williams
(2002)
-
Supreme Court unanimus decision described
by many as "continuing the justices' pattern of limiting the reach of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990"
-
Workers with carpel tunnel syndrome
and tendinitis sought job transfer
-
ADA says employers must make "reasonable
accommodation" for disability
-
Lower court supported Williams' request
because was no longer able to use her hands and arms to do a type of manual
labor required by her present job
-
Toyota attorney protested that the
decision "threatened to turn every workplace injury into an ADA case"
-
Supreme Court overturned lower court
decision
-
said employees must show that they
are not only impaired on the job, but also that the impairment affects
activities vital to their daily lives
-
keys on portion of ADA defining a disability
as limiting one or more major life activities
-
Justice O'Conner further noted the
"the impairment's impact must also be permanent or long-term"
-
click
here to read the official decision
Keep an eye out for additional documents in coming weeks covering other
aspects of discrimination, sexual harassment, EEO, and affirmative action.
Check back for new additions to Dr. McCarthy's I/O Documents page in the
time ahead.
Copyright 2002 Patrick M. McCarthy
All Rights Reserved
Here is where you can return to Dr. McCarthy's I/O
Documents webpage
Or you can go to his Homepage,
if you like
Last updated: 09 January 2002
URL: http://www.mtsu.edu/~pmccarth/eeocourt.htm
Send
comments to: PMCCARTH@mtsu.edu